Democrats: Union owned and operated

[Vi-Jay 218]

Source

"Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected," observed President Obama this week, enjoying a nice chuckle about the unhappy fate of his near-$1 trillion stimulus. To be sure, Obama has also been promoting a less amusing remedy for anemic growth and high unemployment: exports. In this year's State of the Union address, he proclaimed a national goal of doubling exports by 2014.

One obvious way to increase exports is through free-trade agreements. But unions don't like them. No surprise then that for two years Obama has been sitting on three free-trade agreements — with Colombia, Panama and South Korea — already negotiated by his predecessor.

Under the pressure of dire economic conditions and of the consequences of stiffing three valued allies, Obama appeared ready to relent — only to put up a last-minute roadblock. He's demanding an expansion of Trade Adjustment Assistance — taxpayer money (beyond unemployment compensation) given to workers displaced by foreign competition, something denied to Americans rendered unemployed by domestic competition. It's an idea of dubious fairness but nicely designed to hold up ratification, while placing blame on Republican heartlessness rather than on political sabotage by Democrats beholden to unions for the millions they pour into Democratic coffers. (A deal reportedly may be near. But the years of delay have been costly.)

Nothing new here. In 2009, Obama pushed through a federally run, questionably legal, bankruptcy for the auto companies that robbed first-in-line creditors in order to bail out the United Auto Workers. Elsewhere, Delta Air Lines workers have voted four times to reject unionization. A federal agency, naturally, is investigating and, notes economist Irwin Stelzer, can order still another election in the hope that it yields the answer Obama's campaign team wants.

But Democratic fealty to unions does not stop there. Boeing has just completed a production facility in South Carolina for its new 787 Dreamliner. The National Labor Relations Board, stacked with Democrats — including one former union lawyer considered so partisan that he required a recess appointment after the Senate refused to confirm him — is trying to get the plant declared illegal. Why? Because by choosing right-to-work South Carolina, Boeing is accused of retaliating against its unionized Washington state workers for previous strikes.

In fact, Boeing has increased unionized employment by more than 2,000 at its Puget Sound plant. Moreover, the idea that a company in a unionized state can thus be prohibited from expanding into right-to-work states by a partisan regulatory body is quite insane. It violates the fundamental principle in a free-market economy that companies can move and build in response to market conditions, rather than administrative fiat. It jeopardizes the economic recovery, not only targeting America's single largest exporter in its attempt to compete with Airbus for a huge global market, but also threatening any other company that might think of expanding in any way displeasing to unions and their NLRB patrons.

Obama has been utterly silent in the Boeing affair. Which is understood by all as tacit approval. He's facing re-election next year. And Democrats need unions.

Of course, unions need Democrats — who deliver quite faithfully. In last year's nationwide "shellacking" of Democrats, for example, Wisconsin gave Republicans control of both legislative chambers and elected a Republican governor who made clear his intention to rein in public-sector union power.

When the Republicans tried to do as promised, Democrats, lacking the votes, tried to block it by every extraparliamentary maneuver short of arson. State Senate Democrats fled Wisconsin to prevent a quorum. Demonstrators filled the statehouse for days and nights on end. And when the bill finally passed nonetheless, Dane County's Democratic district attorney went to court to have it thrown out on procedural grounds.

They found a pliant judge to invalidate the law. A famous victory, but short-lived. On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overturned the ruling, upbraiding the judge for having "usurped the legislative power which the Wisconsin Constitution grants exclusively to the Legislature." The law is reinstated.

Instructive cases all, demonstrating how those who lose popular support — Democrats at the polls, unions in their declining membership — can subvert and circumvent the popular will by judicial usurpation (Wisconsin) or administrative fiat (Boeing).

The Wisconsin maneuver ultimately failed, as likely will the assault on Boeing. In the interim, however, there is collateral damage — to U.S. exports, to the larger economy, to bankruptcy law, to free trade, to a constitutional system wherein the legislatures make the laws, rather than willful judges and partisan regulators.

But what are those when there are unions to appease and elections to win?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

This obsession that Krauthammer and other shrill voices on the right have with unions is mind boggling. Unions now represent less than 12% of the workforce, only 7% in the private sector.

More to the point of his argument: He essentially claims that what we need to do to get people back to work and the economy going are less union influence and more free trade. The data points the other way. Increased free trade and decreased unionization over the past few decades have brought us ever increasing trade deficits and stagnant wages. In other words, despite stagnant cost of labor and despite more access to foreign markets, we have imported more than we have exported - or, we have consumed more than we have produced.

Compare that with an industrialized export nation like Germany which exports more than 1.2 trillion dollars worth of goods and services annually - about on par with the US though Germany is only about 23% of the size of the US in terms of population and only 20% in terms of the economy.

Now, if unions are the roadblock to economic success as is claimed, then how can an industrialized country like Germany fare so much better on trade than the US seeing that Germany has more than twice the unionization rate of the US? How can that much more heavily unionized country produce and export better than the US? It's impossible if one was to subscribe to the argument presented by Krauthammer. Bottom line is that the US happens to be the least unionized country in the industrialized world and yet it is also the country within that group that has the largest trade deficit.

To be clear: I am not suggesting that less unionization causes larger trade deficits. But I am suggesting that there's no proof whatsoever that less unionization will help our trade balance - i.e. boost production and exports.

[Vi-Jay 218]

More to the point of his argument

Did you read the thread/ article title? How 'bout addressing the main point of the article instead of composing a pro union rant?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did you read the thread/ article title? How 'bout addressing the main point of the article instead of composing a pro union rant?

I did. Did you? Krauthammer is going off on the unions controlling the Democrats who, in turn, to appease the unions wreck the economy. It's about as bad an argument as can be made but that's what he presents.

[Vi-Jay 218]

I did. Did you? Krauthammer is going off on the unions controlling the Democrats who, in turn, to appease the unions wreck the economy. It's about as bad an argument as can be made but that's what he presents.

I ask the question more succinctly. Do unions own and operate the Democrats?

and, If you don't mind giving your opinion on another.., Do you think the UAW played any part in GM's bankruptcy?

Edited June 17, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I ask the question more succinctly. Do unions own and operate the Democrats?

and, If you don't mind giving your opinion on another.., Do you think the UAW played any part in GM's bankruptcy?

No, unions do neither own nor operate the Democrats. Not any more than corprate America owns and operates the GOP.

I also do not believe that the UAW is to blame for GM's bankruptcy. GM was poorly managed for too long and fell behind on innovation and quality. that's what caused GM's trouble. If the UAW was to blame, then how did Ford manage? How does Mercedes Benz, BMW, VW, Audi and other European automakers manage to produce competitive, quality vehicles?

[Vi-Jay 218]

Contributions: Unions love Democrats. or is it, Democrats love Unions... Edited June 17, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Contributions: Unions love Democrats. or is it, Democrats love Unions...

What? There is a party that believes that labor has a right to organize and there is a party that does not. Organized labor makes contributions that reflect that reality. Are you upset that Unions don't care to pay the party that would whack them every chance it got?

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Unions have always supported Democrats for the most part,and why not? It's jobs/work/money we are looking at. Republican's for the most part are for cheap non union labor, and I'm all for paying my bills. Unless the US changes up from a capitalist system to to something like a Communist type system where money doesn't count... it comes down to paying the bills along with worker safety. I'm work in the construction field and I can say for a fact, that other than non union oil support outfits up on the slope, non union company's don't make safety as big as an issue as union outfits do not to mention non union outfits don't have a problem of hiring unskilled workers for skilled positions.

We even get a list from the union on who to vote for in up coming elections. Why would I vote for someone who's out to screw me when I can vote for someone who's going to help put food on my table? There aren't any millionaires in our local.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Why_Me

[Vi-Jay 218]

What? There is a party that believes that labor has a right to organize and there is a party that does not. Organized labor makes contributions that reflect that reality. Are you upset that Unions don't care to pay the party that would whack them every chance it got?

Nope. I think it validates that Dem's and Unions are hand in hand. I don't blame the Unions for supporting the Dem's and I don't blame the Dem's for being Union puppets. Money talks.

Unions have always supported Democrats for the most part,and why not? It's jobs/work/money we are looking at. Republican's for the most part are for cheap non union labor, and I'm all for paying my bills. Unless the US changes up from a capitalist system to to something like a Communist type system where money doesn't count... it comes down to paying the bills along with worker safety. I'm work in the construction field and I can say for a fact, that other than non union oil support outfits up on the slope, non union company's don't make safety as big as an issue as union outfits do not to mention non union outfits don't have a problem of hiring unskilled workers for skilled positions.

We even get a list from the union on who to vote for in up coming elections. Why would I vote for someone who's out to screw me when I can vote for someone who's going to help put food on my table? There aren't any millionaires in our local.

I agree. I think a man/ woman has to do what is best for his/ hers.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Nope. I think it validates that Dem's and Unions are hand in hand. I don't blame the Unions for supporting the Dem's and I don't blame the Dem's for being Union puppets. Money talks.

I agree. I think a man/ woman has to do what is best for his/ hers.

Of course unions and dems are hand in hand...that's never been a secret, nor has the fact that repubs and business owners are hand in hand. Each side supports their own interest. Repubs get support ($) from business owners and white collar workers, and dems get support ($) from unions. It's been like that for decades now.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Of course unions and dems are hand in hand...that's never been a secret, nor has the fact that repubs and business owners are hand in hand. Each side supports their own interest. Repubs get support ($) from business owners and white collar workers, and dems get support ($) from unions. It's been like that for decades now.

I'm not totally convinced about that. Take a closer look at the contributors list. It appears major corporations straddle the fence.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nope. I think it validates that Dem's and Unions are hand in hand. I don't blame the Unions for supporting the Dem's and I don't blame the Dem's for being Union puppets. Money talks.

Well, as long as you equally characterize the GOP as corporate puppets, I suppose that sums it up.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Well, as long as you equally characterize the GOP as corporate puppets, I suppose that sums it up.

See post #12.

What I see..., Unions are loyal to Dem's and big business bets on the winners.

Edited June 17, 2011 by Vi-Jay

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'm not totally convinced about that. Take a closer look at the contributors list. It appears major corporations straddle the fence.

Major corps have more $$$ to cover their #######, so they can afford to bet on more than one horse. I can't say I blame them. Money talks when it comes to politics. Money is always the bottom line.